According to Mark, I lost half the debate by admitting that Scripture does not use the verb "to justify" to mean an infusion of righteousness, but he's wrong.
1) I did not say that Scripture doesn't use the verb "to justify" to mean an infusion of righteousness; rather, I said that I don't know of any instance of the verb "to justify" in a context that would necessitate an infused righteous (aside from any personal beliefs about justification). Just because the word is not used in a context that would necessitate an infused righteousness does not mean that it never means that. To find out the true meaning of "to justify," we must also look at other relevant passages that don't use the verb "to justify" and come to a conclusion based on all the relevant Scripture passages.
2) As I said in my first rebuttal, passages such as Genesis 6:9, Job 1:1, Matthew 5:20, Luke 1:6, 1 John 3:7, and Romans 5:17-19 use the noun and adjective forms of the word "justify" in contexts that do necessitate an infused righteousness. To exclude all other forms of the word "justify" in one's exegesis is a rather narrow way of interpreting Scripture.
3) As I said in my first rebuttal, none of the Old Testament passages that Mark brought up in his opening statement necessitate a merely imputed righteousness. Rather, the interpretations of those passages can include a recognition of a righteousness that already exists within the person, which is consistent with the Catholic belief. Granted, justification has a legal and declaratory aspect to it, but that's not the only aspect. In addition, most of those passages refer to humans justifying other humans, so they obviously can't refer to infusing righteousness. I only know of one such passage (of the type that Mark brought up) that refers to God justifying people, and one passage of Scripture can't prove that justification excludes an infusion of righteousness. Mark also brought up Romans 8:30-34, but, as I have demonstrated, the contrast between justification and condemnation here and in other passages does not necessitate an imputed righteousness.
Mark's argument against my use of Romans 5:17-19 consists of two parts.
The first part of his argument says that since 1) Paul says we're justified by faith and 2) I supposedly admitted that "to justify" does not mean "to make righteous," it follows that justification is an imputation rather than an infusion of justice. The problem with this, however, is that once his second assertion is shown to be false (as I did in the previous section), his whole argument is invalid. There is no reason why justification by faith (even if it's faith alone) cannot be an infusion of righteousness.
The second part of his argument goes like this: When Adam sinned, we were merely considered sinners (but, I assume, we didn't actually become sinners), and because of this, we were cursed and began to act sinfully (but not as a result of being actually sinful), so there's no indication of Adam's sin being infused into us. He's saying that while we were only considered sinners without actually being so, we still began to act sinfully. That doesn't make much sense.
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned- sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law." - Romans 5:12-13
Mark says that Paul mentions imputation here, but this passage actually works against his position. If Mark is right, then Paul would be saying, "Sin was in the world before the law, but God didn't consider anyone to be sinful without them actually being so," which is obviously not what the passage means. The word "reckon" here means "to recognize what is inherent within," which only supports the Catholic position.
Next, Mark argues that by contrasting justification and condemnation, Paul uses the two terms in the sense of legal declarations. The problem, however, is in his interpretation of condemnation. We were made sinners and unfit for heaven, which lead to condemnation. In this case, condemnation and the change from being perfect to being sinners are one in the same. It follows, then, that justification and being made actually righteous are also one in the same. In this context, both justification and condemnation are connected to subjective changes within the individual.
Mark then argues that the Greek word for "made" in verse 19, "kathistemi," means to appoint, so we are not made actually sinful or actually righteous. This interpretation has a few problems.
1) It leads to the absurd belief that Adam's sin didn't make us actually sinful even though we began to act sinfully.
2) In the passages Mark brought up, those who are appointed to positions become "the one in charge;" they are not merely considered in charge without being so. For example, in Titus 1:5, the people actually become elders; they are not merely considered elders without actually being so. Granted, the change isn't the same as becoming righteous, but it's as much of a subjective change as possible regarding appointed positions.
3) Even if my previous point is false, Strong's Greek Lexicon* gives "to constitute, to render, make, cause to be," (emphasis mine) as a possible meaning for the word, as shown by its use in 2 Peter 1:8:
"For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." (KJV)
Therefore, the Greek word "kathistemi" is not inconsistent with my interpretation.
I did show that Paul rejected only works done to legally earn salvation. In my first rebuttal, I explained Romans 4:4-5, but I will now explain it again.
"Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." - Romans 4:4-5
Here, Paul clearly says that the kinds of works he condemns are those that would legally earn salvation and make God owe us salvation as a wage. Works done in the Catholic view of salvation don't make God legally owe us salvation; rather, God chooses to reward our good works out of His love for us.
In addition, if we interpret Paul as condemning all works in justification, then he contradicts not only other Scripture passages (such as James 2:24) that include works in justification, but he also contradicts what he himself said in Romans 2:6-8 and Philippians 2:12.
In closing, I would like to thank Mark for having been a great opponent; he has forced me to think more deeply about what Scripture says on this important topic. I have learned a lot during this debate, and I hope that I have been able to shed some light on why we Catholics believe what we do on this issue.
* Post-Debate Note: I made a mistake here; it's not Strong's Lexicon (I don't think that even exists). It's the online Greek lexicon from crosswalk.com
